In case some people are unaware, this is the Poker THEORY forum.

There are many other 2+2 forums that discuss poker strategy issues and questions.

Really, the existence of this forum does not reflect a value-judgment of the importance, efficacy, or preeminence of "theory" over "strategy" by 2+2 admins, mods, or members.

It merely reflects that in this forum (the Poker THEORY forum) we discuss issues and questions pertaining to poker theory. And, yes, a great deal of the theoretical discussions focus upon GTO since it is a cornerstone of theoretical formulations.

In the other poker forums, they discuss many issues and questions, some of which overlap the discussions herein, from a more non-theoretical framework. As everyone knows, there are a ton of interesting and valuable insights about playing poker that have nothing to do with "theory". (In fact, it could easily be argued that there are MORE interesting and valuable insights about playing poker that have nothing to do with "theory".)

The point is that people who wish to contribute to or read discussions of poker theory gravitate to this forum. Other people (notwithstanding the possibility of a fair amount of overlap) who wish to contribute to or read discussions of poker from a non-theoretical perspective gravitate to those other "strategy" forums.

Guys you need to stop letting yourselves get trolled by that guy that seems to love making outrageous claims and then cherry picking situations that "prove" he is right.

This guy has to be a troll right?

Even if there is a specific holding that is more profitable UTG than BTN (extreme example) that hand will still be played in both seats.
A more specific question would be, are there any hands worth playing oop that would be folded for a single raise in a 2b pot?

Take the pocket 9's for example.
Open for a raise UTG 6-handed for sure, but probably a fold in UTG+1 versus a UTG open raise, right? Or, a definite 3-bet against UTG open. If it is a 3-bet with 4 players behind then there are no hands that could ever be considered more profitable oop.

Thats villian dependent, name the hands that are hands down more +EV OOP?

AFAIK poker bots are all heads up so just keep that in mind with that post. Not sure if the bots in question are limit or no limit either which would probably change the results.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

FWIW, I've just looked at some HU 100bb deep 100NL pre-flop spots with Snowie (I think Tartanian played 200bb deep) and the estimated EVs of 99+ are indeed higher in the BB when facing a 3bb open than when making a 3bb open in the SB/BTN. In fact, Snowie also puts 88 in that category, but not AKs. Curiously, 98s and 75s also seem to do slightly better as 3-bets than as opens, but most of the other 3-bet hands I've looked at have a higher EV in the SB.
It should be mentioned that since the SB folds the BTN sometimes (so the BB gets walks), all the light 3-bet hands will have slightly higher EVs in the long run than the number given for EV when facing an open. i.e. 98s might have an EV of 0.98bb as a 3-bet when facing a 3x open, but it wins 1.5bb instantly if the SB/BTN open folds.
--
As an additional curio, I've had at least one 100k sample of 6-max where I won more money with aces in the BB than on the button. I wouldn't say aces "play better" OOP, however, and my results were probably due to weird quirks of variance (e.g. cold 4-betting and stacking kings).

This is from my first post on this thread -


... This website has been taken over by GTO. I've spent years putting forward exploitative theory on here and almost everyone, even the mods, attack me constantly for explaining things that quite often nobody else can. You troll all over my posts and then call me a troll. Insult me all day long.

You guys cant see how ridiculous you're being but I see it as clear as day. There was no legitimate reason for Rusty to have a go. Again. The only reason I get all this abuse is because most of you guys are suffering from cognitive dissonance due to being unaware of the exploitative decision making process which is already built into your minds.

That was one of the things I worked out. And it is correct. I've worked out all kinds of things. Among them is that 2+2 is almost dead due to GTO, and trolls.

This sites a goner.

When in the big blind and facing a 3 big blind open, the opponent has already put 3 big blinds in the pot and hero has an equity advantage with those hands. Meanwhile when those hands open to 3 big blinds on the button, the opponent has only put 1 big blind in the pot and may fold without putting more in. So, at those measuring points, in the OOP case there is more of our opponent's money in the pot, which is good for hero with those hands obviously.

When OOP, I think you'd have to take into account the times the opponent open folds to get a better picture of the EV of the hand. Or was that already accounted for? And I'm not sure how often Snowie would open fold HU; I'd guess not too too often.

Yadoula, I got nothing against you personally but you've derailed countless threads talking about how every one but you sucks at poker, now including this one. Maybe if you spend your time talking about poker instead of talking **** about everyone that you view as being beneath you exploitively, we could actually learn stuff from each other.

It's one thing to add some personality to your posts and it's another thing to be a distraction.

Maybe instead of talking about what everyone else does wrong you should talk about what you do right. For example:

I folded a hand in the small blind the other day after 3 limpers because there was a maniac to my left. / brag.

I 3 bet the turn out of position blind vs blind vs a maniac with J8o on 9832r and then bet the river for value successfully, in the same game.

How's my exploitive plan and what's the next step for exploiting this guy, considering the possibility of getting heads up vs him often thanks to tight players to his left?

I don't derail these threads when I say that I don't suck, it's obviously everyone saying that I suck in the first place that derails them lol. Just look to the posts. I'm defending myself.

I'm not sure that you really want my advice, but here it is anyway, why not -

You did well against that guy in your second example, that looks like a good play... You seemed to use all the exploitative levels of thought (whether you noticed or not). It looks like you were able to extract thin value by realising that the villain thinks were bluffing = Level Three/Five, which is impressive. I do wonder about your betsizes, there was lots of stuff missing from the example.

In your first example, its hard to tell which hand you were folding to the limpers, I hope it was 72, but I'm guessing it was a medium-weak strength hand, something like J8, Q4 perhaps, or something a little stronger. I'm also guessing the limpers are all micro stakes players. Based on that information -
You don't seem to pay enough attention to the villains range in general. You need to remember to always give them a range and always follow it - Everyone starts with 100% of hands, and we break it down everytime they make a decision.
Also, you don't pay enough attention to the chips you will make/lose both now and on later streets from the each of the hands in that range. That, right there, is the one specific part of theory that you want to work on. As soon as your dealt your cards you want to be considering to some degree of accuracy what the villain will do with his entire range in the future, as well as the money that you will win/lose when he does it. You don't need to be accurate, but the more clearly you can be aware of the future for each individual decision the better the player you are. Once you, personally, get more accurate you will see that the crazy guy IP isnt all bad, he can actually do you all kinds of favors on later streets. In his very next move he is going to tell us whether or not he has better than J8, which is handy, and we can still fold after we call. On the flop he'll often fold out all the other players for us free of charge too, thats a good one, and, obviously, if we hit some nuts in the future we can use him to help us build the pot. Build the pot. Build the pot. It's like sweet music to my ears because i'm currently getting 9-1 against what look like a load of weak players.
You did seem to notice that this villain could rinse us on later streets, but your being pesimistic. 9-1 man, in the future you can just check fold all but the 40-1 2pair+ if you must, and you'll still blatantly make loads of profit.


Once your comfortable with that, you want to do a very similar thing but with the range that the opponent thinks you hold. Learn to follow it in its entirety. And then learn to be aware of how it'll change in the future.

Q5o, actually. You were very close. I thought I mentioned it was a limit holdem game but maybe I forgot to.

I was hoping you'd notice that he's much more likely to make a move in last position than first position, making our thin value hands go up in value when we're out of position, due to the possibility of a bluff raise on the turn.

No, thats the reason you 3bet some hand that cannot be flatted OOP that you would peel IP.